Funded in part by National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff
A review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of red and processed meat, meat cooking methods, heme iron, heterocyclic amines and prostate cancer
Bylsma LC, Alexander DD
Nutrition journal · 61 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- Industry group
- National Cattlemen's Beef Association
- Industry group
- National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2015-12-01 · Nutr J · vol. 14 · issue 1 · p. 125
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Cited
- 104 citations · more than 80% of similar papers · 1.4× the field average
- References
- 74 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Radiation Effects and Dosimetry · Air Quality and Health Impacts
- Keywords
- Red meat, Prostate cancer, Medicine, Prospective cohort study, Heterocyclic amine, Cancer, Processed meat, Prostate, Cohort study, Internal medicine, Environmental health, Food science, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, prostatic neoplasms, iron, amines, heme, diet, risk factors, prospective studies, causality, meat, meat products, male, cooking
2 authors
From US
- Lauren C. BylsmaMichigan United
- Dominik D. AlexanderMichigan United
Abstract
Prostate cancer remains a significant public health concern among men in the U.S. and worldwide. Epidemiologic studies have generally produced inconclusive results for dietary risk factors for prostate cancer, including consumption of red and processed meats. We aimed to update a previous meta-analysis of prospective cohorts of red and processed meats and prostate cancer with the inclusion of new and updated cohort studies, as well as evaluate meat cooking methods, heme iron, and heterocyclic amine (HCA) intake exposure data. A comprehensive literature search was performed and 26 publications from 19 different cohort studies were included. Random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high vs. low exposure categories. Additionally, meta-regression analyses and stratified intake analyses were conducted to evaluate dose-response relationships. The SRREs for total prostate cancer and total red meat consumption, fresh red meat consumption, and processed meat consumption were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.12), 1.06 (95% CI: 0.97-1.16), and 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01-1.10), respectively. Analyses were also conducted for the outcomes of non-advanced, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer when sufficient data were available, but these analyses did not produce significant results. No significant SRREs were observed for any of the meat cooking methods, HCA, or heme iron analyses. Dose-response analyses did not reveal significant patterns of associations between red or processed meat and prostate cancer. In conclusion, the results from our analyses do not support an association between red meat or processed consumption and prostate cancer, although we observed a weak positive summary estimate for processed meats.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.